The Rust Evangelism Task Force has declared "ethics" to be out of scope.
-
The Rust Evangelism Task Force has declared "ethics" to be out of scope. And that's going as well as you might guess:
This document establishes a policy for how LLMs can be used when contributing to rust-lang/rust. [...] No comment on this PR may mention the following topics:
• Long-term social or economic impact of LLMs
• The environmental impact of LLMs
• Anything to do with the copyright status of LLM output
• Moral judgements about people who use LLMs@jwz@mastodon.social Evangelism? Lucifer is an angel. A fallen angel, but an angel. -
The Rust Evangelism Task Force has declared "ethics" to be out of scope. And that's going as well as you might guess:
This document establishes a policy for how LLMs can be used when contributing to rust-lang/rust. [...] No comment on this PR may mention the following topics:
• Long-term social or economic impact of LLMs
• The environmental impact of LLMs
• Anything to do with the copyright status of LLM output
• Moral judgements about people who use LLMs@jwz How about this part?
-
The Rust Evangelism Task Force has declared "ethics" to be out of scope. And that's going as well as you might guess:
This document establishes a policy for how LLMs can be used when contributing to rust-lang/rust. [...] No comment on this PR may mention the following topics:
• Long-term social or economic impact of LLMs
• The environmental impact of LLMs
• Anything to do with the copyright status of LLM output
• Moral judgements about people who use LLMs@jwz the excerpt left me with an impression that things are worse than they are
to add a few more quotes to balance that take:
> We still consider these topics to be important, we simply do not believe this is the right place to discuss them.
> This intentionally does not address the moral, social, and environmental impacts of LLMs. These topics have been extensively discussed on Zulip without reaching consensus, but this policy is relevant regardless of the outcome of these discussions.
-
@jwz the excerpt left me with an impression that things are worse than they are
to add a few more quotes to balance that take:
> We still consider these topics to be important, we simply do not believe this is the right place to discuss them.
> This intentionally does not address the moral, social, and environmental impacts of LLMs. These topics have been extensively discussed on Zulip without reaching consensus, but this policy is relevant regardless of the outcome of these discussions.
@jwz and most importantly, the policy itself
> The policy's guidelines are roughly as follows:
> It's fine to use LLMs to answer questions, analyze, distill, refine, check, suggest, review. But not to **create**. -
@jwz the excerpt left me with an impression that things are worse than they are
to add a few more quotes to balance that take:
> We still consider these topics to be important, we simply do not believe this is the right place to discuss them.
> This intentionally does not address the moral, social, and environmental impacts of LLMs. These topics have been extensively discussed on Zulip without reaching consensus, but this policy is relevant regardless of the outcome of these discussions.
@flpvsk Anyone who says "we want to craft this policy only around technical reasons without any discussion of ethics" is:
A) Putting their thumb on the scale
B) A massive piece of shit -
@jwz@mastodon.social Evangelism? Lucifer is an angel. A fallen angel, but an angel.
@Life_is wat
-
@flpvsk Anyone who says "we want to craft this policy only around technical reasons without any discussion of ethics" is:
A) Putting their thumb on the scale
B) A massive piece of shit@jwz i largely agree. my *charitable* read on this would be:
1. they are not ready to put together AI guidelines in it's full and final form, bc the discussion is ongoing (not set aside, just not finalized, ongoing on Zulip).
2. At the same time AI-authored PRs keep coming in, so they need something in the policy to point to to reject those.
that's the impression I got at least
-
@jwz i largely agree. my *charitable* read on this would be:
1. they are not ready to put together AI guidelines in it's full and final form, bc the discussion is ongoing (not set aside, just not finalized, ongoing on Zulip).
2. At the same time AI-authored PRs keep coming in, so they need something in the policy to point to to reject those.
that's the impression I got at least
@flpvsk I have no "charity" left for slop-pushers. They are destroying the world. You do not, under any circumstances, got to hand it to them.
-
@jwz How about this part?
-
-
The Rust Evangelism Task Force has declared "ethics" to be out of scope. And that's going as well as you might guess:
This document establishes a policy for how LLMs can be used when contributing to rust-lang/rust. [...] No comment on this PR may mention the following topics:
• Long-term social or economic impact of LLMs
• The environmental impact of LLMs
• Anything to do with the copyright status of LLM output
• Moral judgements about people who use LLMs@jwz Also seems very weird that *whether LLM code can even be legally copyrighted and licensed for OSS* gets sandwiched between questions of "just ethics".
You'd think you'd want to have that one nailed down before accepting ANY contributions.
-
The Rust Evangelism Task Force has declared "ethics" to be out of scope. And that's going as well as you might guess:
This document establishes a policy for how LLMs can be used when contributing to rust-lang/rust. [...] No comment on this PR may mention the following topics:
• Long-term social or economic impact of LLMs
• The environmental impact of LLMs
• Anything to do with the copyright status of LLM output
• Moral judgements about people who use LLMs@jwz Sounds like rules an LLM would make...
-
@jwz How about this part?
-
@jwz and most importantly, the policy itself
> The policy's guidelines are roughly as follows:
> It's fine to use LLMs to answer questions, analyze, distill, refine, check, suggest, review. But not to **create**.@flpvsk @jwz agreed - it's largely just saying "we need a policy either way. constructive comments welcome, broader discussion belongs elsewhere" and that seems... fine? Github is hardly an ideal (or even good) place for heavily threading discussions. And they're correct that they need a policy, as many treat "no comment" as permission.
That said, the Zulip they link to is not publicly visible, which is rather concerning. Private discussions are fine, but they're not evidence, and they don't provide a place to go to contribute.
-
The Rust Evangelism Task Force has declared "ethics" to be out of scope. And that's going as well as you might guess:
This document establishes a policy for how LLMs can be used when contributing to rust-lang/rust. [...] No comment on this PR may mention the following topics:
• Long-term social or economic impact of LLMs
• The environmental impact of LLMs
• Anything to do with the copyright status of LLM output
• Moral judgements about people who use LLMs@jwz “discussion restricted to collaborators”. Indeed.
-
@jwz “discussion restricted to collaborators”. Indeed.
@mhoye @jwz makes me wonder if they meant https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/collaborateur
-
-
@jwz and most importantly, the policy itself
> The policy's guidelines are roughly as follows:
> It's fine to use LLMs to answer questions, analyze, distill, refine, check, suggest, review. But not to **create**. -
The Rust Evangelism Task Force has declared "ethics" to be out of scope. And that's going as well as you might guess:
This document establishes a policy for how LLMs can be used when contributing to rust-lang/rust. [...] No comment on this PR may mention the following topics:
• Long-term social or economic impact of LLMs
• The environmental impact of LLMs
• Anything to do with the copyright status of LLM output
• Moral judgements about people who use LLMs@jwz Declare you're in the pockets of tech billionaires without declaring you're the pockets of tech billionaires.
-
@flpvsk @jwz agreed - it's largely just saying "we need a policy either way. constructive comments welcome, broader discussion belongs elsewhere" and that seems... fine? Github is hardly an ideal (or even good) place for heavily threading discussions. And they're correct that they need a policy, as many treat "no comment" as permission.
That said, the Zulip they link to is not publicly visible, which is rather concerning. Private discussions are fine, but they're not evidence, and they don't provide a place to go to contribute.
@groxx @flpvsk No, it's saying, "This is where we're going to decide what our policy should be, and oh by the way, the primary and most fundamental objections that many people have to using LLMs are out of bounds for this discussion."
That's not just putting your thumb on the scale, that's kicking the legs out from under the table.
